One dimension of this occurred to me last night when hearing from people who had tried to reach the London demonstration, and had been turned back, or had been there and been shocked by the way they had been treated. And all that happened at the foot of the steps outside St Paul's Cathedral - the cathedral of the City of London. It was that connection that surprised me.

St Paul's was not, of course, meant to be the focus of the occupation. Perhaps a little unrealistically that was always hoped to be the London Stock Exchange. But like it or not, the focus is now St Paul's. What's the relevance of that? Well, I think it raises another serious agenda, wich I would welcome being brought into the open.

I make little of it on this site, but I am a Christian, being both an Anglican and a regular Quaker attender, the latter being overall more telling of my sentiments about faith, as well as explaining my absence of evangelical zeal - Quakers just don't do such things. But the significance for the current situation is that I do not see role of St Paul's in the situation in which it finds itself as a neutral one.

The canon chancellor of St Paul's and regular Thought for the DAy commentator, Reverend Giles Fraser, told the BBC he was happy for people to "exercise their right to protest peacefully" outside the cathedral. But that's not good enough, I say. I think it was his job to have opened the catherdal to those protesting last night to provide them with shelter and facilities, a place to eat and a secure place away from the risk of harassment in which they could stage their protest and explain it to the world. That's what places of sanctuary do. But the Cathedral locked its doors.

Fraser didn't even say he supported what the protesters were doing according to the BBC report, and I am sure they would have quoted him saying so if he had.

And I say he should have done: I say it was his duty to be out there with the protestors. I say it was and is his duty to welcome then into his church. Why? To answer that turn to Luke Chapter 4.18 where Jesus explained the purpose os his mission, about which he said:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and recovery of sight to the blind,
to let the oppressed go free,to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.

For those in doubt about the economic relevance of this the phrase 'the year of the Lord’s favour' refers to a Jubilee - a forgiveness of debt that happened in Jewish law every fifty years. How relevant is that for the present time?

Now, I stress, I'm not asking you to believe that statement, or to take action on it. That's not my style on this issue. But Fraser and the entire church has taken a psotion on this issue. He and it says they believe in Jesus and his mission. I'm asking them to stand by that commitment.

Right now the representatives of the poor and the oppressed are camped outside their door. And St Paul's is saying that's OK. Well, it's not OK. It's their duty to welcome them in as fellow pilgrims in the ministry of declaring good news for the poor and freedom for the oppressed. It's time for the church - every church in the UK - to say where it stands on this issue - and declare it has, in the words of the late Rt Rev David Shepherd, 'A Bias to the Poor' ( a phrase that irritated Thatcher so much - as Shepherd intended it should).

And if the church means that is bringing good news to the poor (as I think it both should, and must) and if the faith of those attending those churches is to means anything then it has to welcome those campaigning on its steps into its churches.

That means it has to provide them with shelter when the police attack protestors.

And that ministers have to stand beside protestors if they are under threat of arrest.

And that the church to attest that what is happening in our society is wrong.

And the challenge is especially appropriate not just for the Church of England - the establishment church - which must show that establishment or not its loyalty is to those in need in this country when they are oppressed by that establishment as they are, deliberately, at present -but most especially this is a challenge for St Pauls which now has a duty to turn to its neighbours in the City and say they have done wrong and it is time for them to change their behaviour and make amends.

If the Church of England fails on this now it deserves to be treated as irrelevent. Faith that cannot speak its name; faith that does not deliver on the promise to the poor and faith that cowers from speaking the truth is faith not worth having.

You cannot be a Christian and not take a position. That's not an option granted to Christians, or their ministers. Giles Fraser cannot be happy with protest by those seeking to defend the poor outside his door but not welcome them in, Not if his preaching on Radio 4 is to have any meaning at all.

It's time to get off the fence Giles. It's time to make your church the centre of resistance in the City. Or to admit instead that you're just running a toursit atracttion. That's your choice. And there's only one right answer if you really believe why you wear that dog collar.

So open those doors wide - especially when the police are nearby. It's your job to provide a place of sanctuary or frankly that building you tend is of no relevance at all and nor is your faith.

It's time for the establishment church to tell the establishment enough is enough. The time for the poor is now. And for that church to demand action on their behalf.

St Paul's may not have been planned as the focus of this protest. But as the epitome of establishment power in the City I think it should be. And I hope it will be.

19 Responses

It is definitely not falling away in the US. They had Kanye West turn out. It would be good if a ‘celeb’ would turn up in London. Obviously, it doesn’t make a difference to the value of the cause, but in our obsessive culture it would bring the press out !

i appreciate what you say, but do you really want the church getting involved in what is essentially a political demonstration? where do they draw the line……………. if the BNP were protesting there, would you ask the same? how about the group (whose name i forget) who burn poppies and protest when the dead soldiers are brought back to the UK?

i think they are best off staying out of it and maintaining a neutral stance – which they have done

The Christian faith is (or should be) highly ethical. it is very obvious where the church has to stand on the BNP – it’s ethic contradicts whole rafts of the teaching of Christ on loving your neighbour as yourself. Of course it must oppose

And war dead? There is the concept of just war – but every life lost should be rightly mourned. That does not stop some Quakers wearig white poppies to ask for peace whilst remembering.

You are asking for a compromised Christianity – a neoliberal Christianity. It is the duty of the church to say no to people like you.

Richard, I’m with you. Steve needs to recall Archbishop Tutu’s response to those who said the Church shouldn’t be involved in politics “They must be reading a different Bible”. The scriptures are full of politics, but also of political philosophy, involving justice, equity and REAL fair trade.

Here, almost at random, is a quote from Malachi, the last book in the Old Testament: “Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.”

The Right wing always want to stop short at those first two categories “sorcerers and adulterers” = the “irreligious and the sexually wanton” and NEVER want to notice that the Bible is far more concerned with justice and freedom. Justice and freedom are absolutely the heart of both Testaments.

This is good stuff…I suppose a lot of people will have issues with upfront Christianity. But the message is unambiguous and still radical. What I can’t stomach is the DWP sending out press releases which then go through the churnalism process and then become the lies spread about the disabled and the unemployed. So who is in overall charge of this department? Ian Duncan Smith. Who calls himself a Christian. As does Cameron. The wrecking ball aimed at society is thus supposed to have a cross embossed on its surface. Most religions seem to have an idealism at their core but also a materialism based on helping the poor. If Christian leaders cannot speak their minds about what is going on then they need to explain why. Silence is not good enough. Take your example from the commited christian writing here. Another great post Richard.

When I was a child we had a school trip to a church. I was told by the priest that a church was a place of sanctuary, and, if I ever needed a place to go to be safe, or if I needed shelter or help then the doors of the church were always open. I felt comforted by this, and told myself to remember it because one day I might need that sanctuary. In my teens I missed the last bus home one night and was cold, stuck miles from home. As I walked around I remembered what that priest had said so I headed for a church, much to my surprise to find the doors firmly locked. As I took shelter in the archway over the door I thought to myself “this can’t be right, he said I could claim sanctuary” and as I shivered myself to sleep I felt betrayed and lied to. Periodically I still check the doors of churches at night, in the hope that it was a one off, and what i’d grown up believing was true, but allas no, I had to put the Christian God in the same box as Father Christmas.

I wonder what St Pauls preacher had to say on Sunday morning. The Gospel text will have been Matthew 22:15-22 – Jesus is asked whether the Jewish Law would permit the payment of tax, in Roman coinage, to the Emperor. Whence comes the famous reply, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God”.

Well the Lord does move in mysterious ways. The protest has moved from its intended destination to St Paul’s – the most famous church and house of God in the Country. So you are right Richard – now is the time the Church can show its power to support and protect those fighting greed, ignorance and arrogance which are all the things the church is against.

Will it open its doors? I sincerely hope so. But I have to be honest and say I am doubtful.

The Christian message is “good news to the poor!” The powerful are “sent empty away” while the poor are “filled with good things” (Mary’s Song – the Gospel of Luke). By adopting “Occupy the stock Exchange,” St Pauls can send a message to the Condem(-ed), millionaires cabinet, that their days are numbered, they will lose their wealth and power since they use their power to enrich themselves (an)at the expense of the poor – the most anti-Christian it is possible to be.

I sincerely hope this movement is the beginning of the end of Neo-Liberal economic regime we’ve endured for the last 30 odd years.

I can recommend “The Wealth of Nature, economics as if survival mattered” by John Michael Greer

Be careful here, no problem with the right of sanctuary, but the agressive nature of some , I repeat some, of the protesting, seems to smack of Judas, who was very much in favour of direct resistance. Hate just produces hate.

Man or Churches (+Politico) – they can never be the saviour: only remember this:
Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
the fowls. 10:29-31 Ge 1:29-31 Job 35:11 38:41 Ps 104:11,12,27,28 Ps 145:15,16 147:9 Lu 12:6,7,24 *etc

No, I think you are taking the “demonised” version of Judas. It’s not what I meant at all.
I believe Judas was sincere, but took a secular view of the world in thinking that the oppressors could be overthrown by force. Jesus turned down this approach. But that did not mean Jesus did not care, he just did not demonise the Tories/ City of his Age i.e. the Romans and the Jewish Establishment for reasons which I thought you might appreciate.

To argue Jesus did not take on the Jewish Establishment of the time is absurd – and the Romans did kill him at their behest (which is not an anti-semitic statement, it’s a measure of the corruption of some people at that time, no more). And I do appreciate why he did that. And his protest was much more powerful than armed uprising could have been, which is why we’re still mentioning it now.

Fraser got 2 minutes in the paper for saying St Paul’s would leave protestors alone if the turnstiles rang. But he could have made history by coming down the steps and sitting with the protestors, saying he believed City reform was essential. He needn’t even have stayed the night.

He chose not to do that. If he had he could have delivered a powerful message for justice. He prioritised the maintenance fund instead. A big mistake

I’ve found Giles Fraser to be a good man. He spoke for us at Levellers Day which commemorates the Levellers who stood up for their ideals of democracy and even wrote a draft constitution called the “agreement of the people” which included such things as religious tolerance, abolishment of the lords, recall of MPs. Giles was also vicar of Putney church and raised the profile of the Putney debates in history. I think he’s also the president of the “inclusive church” and supports women and LGBT people in the church. I suspect he’s actually very supportive of the movement but he’s also being watched by employers I imagine and getting himself kicked out of there isn’t going to help the situation.

Many, me included, thought well of him at Putney. He seemed very sound.

Then he went to St Paul’s and in his actions and in his words and writing he has changed considerably. He showed contempt for the TUC march in March, for example, in an article in the Church Times widely applauded by the right wing but to which responses by myself and others were not published.

He’s done so again since.

And I suspect the reason is he wants City money. Certainly when I heard him speak earlier this year and spoke to him I got an unpleasant surprise about what he thought his role and that of the St Paul’s Institute to be. Promoting the Cityt was not, I thought, the role of the church.

I got the clear impression of a man who did not know his own mind or his own convictions. He is welcome to disagree.